Pakistan’s back-channel US-Iran peace negotiation may not work

Israel remains an important element for lasting peace in West Asia

By Nantoo Banerjee

Pakistan may be right that peace in Lebanon is essential for talks between the US and Iran. But, the key question is: will Iran’s theological regime ever ask its terror sponsor, Hezbollah, to go soft on Israel which lately launched massive waves of airstrikes across southern Lebanon, hitting over 200 Hezbollah targets, killing hundreds of people and driving thousands out of home. Iran provides active, deliberate support—such as funding, weaponising, training, intelligence, or safe-haven—to Hezbollah. The latter is a violent non-state actor, hated by both Israel and the elected Lebanese government. The relations among Iran, Pakistan, Israel and Lebanon are extremely complex. Neither Pakistan, nor Iran recognize Israel as a sovereign state. Thus, Pakistan’s bid to act as a back-channel mediator between Iran and the US-Israel combine is bound to fail.

Pakistan itself faces significant hurdles as a US-Iran mediator due to its deep security and financial dependence on Saudi Arabia, a traditional rival of Shiite Iran. While Pakistan’s patchy bilateral ties with Tehran makes it appear biased or unreliable, it lacks the leverage to force a worthwhile deal between Iran and the US due to its close ties with the US and military ties with Saudi Arabia that hinder trust from Iran. Pakistan has a mutual defence pact with Saudi Arabia. Despite geographic proximity, Iran and Pakistan have experienced recent border friction, which undermines confidence in Pakistan’s impartiality. Pakistan is not trusted by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which holds significant decision-making power in Iran. A highly foreign aid-dependent nation, Pakistan is susceptible to pressure from the US, limiting its ability to serve as an independent broker. Facing its own internal security challenges and hostile relationship with India, a reliable trading partner of both Iran and the Arab world, Pakistan detracts from its credibility as a stable, regional broker.

If Pakistan is serious about its statement that peace in Lebanon is essential for useful talks between the US and Iran, it has missed an important fact that a never-ending Israel-Hezbollah friction stands in the way of such a peace. Pakistan’s diplomats seem to ignore the fact that Lebanon is not controlled by its elected government after the former Christian-majority country slowly converted itself into a Muslim majority nation. Today, Lebanon is controlled by Hezbollah, which functions as a “state within a state” by operating an autonomous military wing stronger than the Lebanese national army, providing extensive social services (schools, hospitals) in areas lacking state presence, and maintaining its own communication networks and infrastructure. As a major Shiite political party, it often acts without the approval of the Lebanese government.

Hezbollah operates independent of the Lebanese Armed Forces, controlling significant parts of South Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley. Thanks to constant Iranian back-up, the group is often considered the most powerful non-state actor and a key part of the “Axis of Resistance”. The group operates its own telecommunications network, social services, and security, creating a parallel structure to the Lebanese state, particularly in its stronghold in the southern Beirut suburbs. The Lebanese state’s monopoly on the use of force is heavily undermined by Hezbollah’s separate security apparatus, which often engages in conflicts independently of the national government. Hezbollah has demanded a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanese territory and a “quiet for quiet” arrangement (a mutual halt to hostilities) as their two conditions for a ceasefire in Lebanon. However, Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu promptly rejected both the demands, stating that Israeli forces would remain “thickened” a 10-km “security zone” in southern Lebanon. Israel has demanded a complete disarmament of Hezbollah as part of long-term peace discussions with Lebanon.

A 10-day ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon from April 17 might have initially triggered dramatic scenes of celebration across cities like Beirut and Sidon, with fireworks lighting up the sky and crowds taking to the streets, but it was short-lived. The situation remains highly volatile, as reports of gunfire and fresh explosions raise concerns about the stability of the truce. The Lebanese army has accused Israel of violating the ceasefire through shelling, adding further uncertainty to an already fragile agreement. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made it clear that Israeli forces will not withdraw, instead maintain a 10 km deep security zone in southern Lebanon. Emphasizing a strategy of “peace through strength,” Israel continues its push to disarm Hezbollah while keeping military pressure intact. Meanwhile, President Trump has expressed optimism about a potential historic peace deal, hinting at a possible meeting between Israeli and Lebanese representatives at the White House in the coming weeks. As regional dynamics involving Iran and broader West Asian diplomacy come into play, this ceasefire may at best work out as a temporary pause before further escalation.

A durable peace in the region may remain a distant dream. It is often described as a “mirage” despite ongoing diplomatic efforts and temporary ceasefires. While a 10-day ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon went into effect on April 17, intended to open a door for negotiations, intense regional hostilities—particularly in the context of unresolved Palestinian question—continue to hinder long-term stability. The current, fragile ceasefires are viewed more as a “pause” than a peace deal, with deep skepticism among all parties. Intense conflict between Israel, the US, and Iran has seen the killing of Iranian leaders, targeting of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, and temporary closure of the Strait of Hormuz. The region is expected to continue to experience a “protracted war of attrition” rather than a peace process, often described as a “stress test” of international principles.

Finally, Iran’s theological government, focussed on prioritising the creation of a “Shiite Crescent” through a network of proxies, is often seen behind clashes with the security interests of neighbouring Arab states and Israel. It is a central factor in regional instability and a significant barrier to durable peace in West Asia. Iran’s projection of influence as a Shia theocracy has increased sectarian tensions in the region, causing friction with predominantly Sunni Arab nations, such as Saudi Arabia, and creating instability in nations like Yemen and Iraq. The country’s pursuit of nuclear technology, which the US and its allies fear could be weaponized, has sparked fears of an arms race in the region and increased the likelihood of pre-emptive strikes by Israel. Pakistan’s effort to broker peace between Iran and the US, often involving Israel by extension, is a complex, high-stakes diplomatic manoeuvring rather than a simple mediation. It is expected to fail, eventually. (IPA Service)